up next on booktv former democratic senator and senate majority leader tom daschle from south dakota presents the history of the u.s. senate and explains the specific responsibilities and operational differences between the senate and the house of representatives. this is about an hour. see our special guest today is a frequent visitor to the national archives, coming with his staff and family often to experience the national archives. and we observed thames with his guest knows his history. he served in the air force and

an officer for the strategic air command. he represent itself dakota in congress for 26 years, four terms in the house of representatives and three terms in the senate. elected to the house in 1978, he was part of the democratic leadership before moving to the senate for three terms beginning in 1987. he was elected summit to -- democrat leader and is one of the longest-serving democratic leaders in the senate and the only one to serve twice as majority leader and twice as minority leader. since he left the senate in 2005 senators subfour has continued to have a strong voice among washington policymakers and is contributed to the debates and health care, climate change, renewable energy financial services reform telecommunications and international trade issues. in 2007 he joined other former senate majority leader's howard baker, george mitchell and bob dole to create the bipartisan

policy center which seeks to find common ground on the nations most pressing issues. these days he's a senior policy adviser at dla piper government affairs and global board. today. today senators subfour will discuss his new book "the u.s. senate" fundamentals of american government written with charles robbins. in it he explains the historical detail of the 100 member body and has worked in the past something i suspect we all wonder about at this particular time. tom daschle. [applause] >> david thank you very much for that generous introduction and thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. it is a real pleasure for me every time i come to the national archives. i am moved and i'm inspired and

for good reason. i think the archives as i'm sure everyone in the round would agree is a national treasure and i don't know of another place in this city or maybe anywhere else where the extraordinary opportunities to witness the essence of america as more palpable conquer more visible and more apparent. herein lies the story of our nation and i am very grateful for the extraordinary leadership of david and his strong team provides and the opportunity to visit as we do with such routine and casual approach. i don't know how how many times i've been here and each and every time it's a memorable experience. david mentioned that the co-author, and i really want to emphasize how much of an

enjoyable experience it was to work with charles robbins. he couldn't be here today but charles is a very gifted and respected writer of many years and it was just a pleasure to work with him. so i salute him and thank him as well. our book was just released this week and it is an exciting moment or an offer to have this work published and released as it has been again and so i celebrate that fact this week. it's all about the body of the united states senate, its history, its current circumstances and our aspirations for it as an institution and i hope you will find it to be of value for those of you who have the opportunity to read it. i was walking through the corridors of the senate many years ago with a friend from nebraska. it's a name -- though he holds

the name that some of you may recognize. his name is ted sorensen. ted was a speechwriter to take john kennedy and as we were walking through those marble corridors of the wonderful statues casting their shadows i think he might've been inspired that while the national archives is the place where history is stored, its the united states senate where our history is made in ways large and small. today history is being made. tomorrow history will be made. a united states senator excellent makes history with the very first moment they come into the united states senate and are sworn in. it's a tradition that a long-standing practice that has -- as a senator is sworn in is given a number and that number goes all the way back to the

very first senate. the first distinction of the senators with the first two member -- numbers william clay and mcmorris numbers one and number two. we have had 1945 united states senators in our history. and i have the fortunate distinction of holding a very special number. my number is 1776. and so i have always thought very fondly of the extraordinary historical consequence of that number and what each senator does with that distinction and that number through his or her career for as long as they are there. from the very first moment you are aware of this powerful linkage really today history going back to our founders, to

the heirs and guardians of a miracle of self governance compact and ideal whose freedoms we swear to uphold and must pass on to future generations undiminished. eight years after i was sworn in, i had another good fortune to be elected democratic leader by my colleagues. i was elected by one vote and so with that precariouprecariou s beginning i started my career not only as a united states senator but as the democratic leader in the united states senate, and i will always remember an experience that i had shortly thereafter. i was invited by a good friend whose name was dick morris to come and spend some time at his home in south dakota.

he was a farmer. he lived outside of sioux falls south dakota. and on the appointed evening a couple of weekends after i was elected, as we had a conversation over meat and potatoes and a wonderful farm dinner, i asked what advice he would have for somebody elected now to this lofty position, to the state of south dakota. he. he paused for a minute and then he said well, i guess if i had any advice for you it would need two things. first, never forget where you came from. always remember who it was that sent you there. and secondly pointing at his grandchildren on the paul, he said you know my grandchildren. you help them. you know them by name. and then he looked at me and he

said, to give them hope, give them some hope. i went home and later that night i got a call during the middle of the night with the news that dick had died. at that moment, locked in memory for me the best advice i think i had ever received in public service. to remember where we came from and to give those we represent some hope. all across america, our country was founded on the premise that the voters and chosen neighbors, people like me to represent them in the united states senate, send sent them to washington with great goals.

a senators challenge is to focus on those goals and not loose sight of him with the daily hustle and battle. that's very difficult in today's political environment. i have two touchstones who helped me -- though that helped me actually stay grounded as they carried out my lofty responsibilities as the majority leader. the first was to occupy what is called the leader's desk. allen furman knows that well. he looked at it every day as our senate parliamentarian. the leader's desk is a very special, special place. it has an inc. well and a snuffbox. if you pull open the drawer, there you see the carved handwritten and handcarved

signatures of every leader who has occupy that desk. it won't surprise you that lbj is the largest and hardest carved in that drawer. but if you look at that desk, and you witness those signatures, if that doesn't make you feel part of history i don't know whatever will. senators who said that those desks take on the challenge dugard and protect the liberties guaranteed in our constitution. it's the same challenge really that our soldiers take on as they fight and protect this great republic and a mop or see in distant lands for which a million men and women have given their lives in over 30 wars over that same course of history. the other distinguishing

touchstone, practice that i started when i was very early into my career as a member of the united states senate was to drive to every one of the 66 counties of south dakota in an unscheduled way throughout the year. i would get in the car by myself and just show up and talk to people, reflecting on their challenges, have their aspirations come for their criticisms and yes their hopes. i don't know that anything inspired me more than to come back and to appreciate the magnitude of the level of patriotism and pride of country than my constituents just like you share with me each and every time. i had the good fortune as david mentioned of representing my state for 26 years in the house and senate. it's a gift for which i will be enormously grateful.

even after all these years, walking onto the senate floor gives me the same sensation as you might have been walking into a church. the majesty, the richness conch of the history, the hush sometimes is akin to a sacred place and in some ways i considered it virtually a secular temple. the senate majority leader and once vice president was asked what does it take to be a great united states senator? yes said welcome, for the most important ingredient is that first you have to get elect to. but in this country to get

elected you don't have to be rich. you don't have to be connected or go to the right schools. i was none of that. you can come from a family with a very humble beginning, a third-generation, from a midwestern state, the first in the family as i was to graduate from college, the 30 be 30 years old and make your best case. ted sorensen's assertion that history is made in ways large and small is absolutely right. sooner or later every issue in the country is debated on that floor. every treaty considered. the sun adjoins in declaring war, ratifies treaty's, confirms or rejects nominees for the supreme court, the cabinet and thousands of other executive decisions and unfortunately

twice convened impeachment courts for the president of the states. shenon called sichuan service and in some ways it is the most rewarding of all the things you do. i can honestly say i've never had a more emotional experience and for people to come up to me and say senator, you don't know how much you helped me. some have said cemetery you actually save my life. george mitchell tells a wonderful story of sonny's restaurant and bangor maine. a man rushing up to him and he thought for a moment he was going to hit him. he had tears streaming down his cheeks and he hugged him instead after along almost embarrassing

hug he let senator mitchell go and he said tom qaeda you just saved my job. if it just become known that he had saved a paper plant outside of bangor. george, the son of a lebanese immigrant, janitor, could identify with that. he said it was one of the most defining moments of this his whole time in the united states senate, just that moment. the constitution doesn't mention political parties as i'm sure most of you know. the founders didn't address it elections actually. james madison often described as one of the founders of the constitution and the bother of the constitution actually warned against factionalism and all the problems that parties could

actually create the. still, our country over time as we now well know adopted the british system of competing parties and either/or approach to a political process that goes all the way back to greece and the hebrews. in the 1720s, both legs and tories crossed the atlantic and they evolved into the federalists and the non-federalist. ultimately evolving even more to democrats and republicans. two parties are now really the foundation of our american political and governmental process. the senate chamber is divided into those two parties with a center aisle that has for a long period of time allowed for a metaphor called crossing the aisle which was defined over

those many decades with an approach to meaningful bipartisanship. he crosses the aisle. the primary defining issue in my view that has been so now for over 100 years is what is the proper role of government? with two very distinct philosophies and ideologieideologie s based on that simple question, what is the role of government plays itself out in an array of different issues each and every congress and each and every day virtually in the florida senate. no more so than the debate over health care these last three years. when i arrived in washington in 1978, congress really was a different place. we were experienced the last vestiges of real bipartisanship compound the voting rights act

come to housing legislation, the environment, campaigner -- reform, all had fairly significant bipartisan support but it wasn't long thereafter that bipartisan coalition's virtually vanished. every senator faces the judgment on finding the right talents between standing one's ground and finding common ground. and it is creating that dilemma, that dynamic each and every day as one senator leads the coalition ultimately leads to caucuses and ultimately the whole body. to what extent will senators gravitate away from standing ground to common ground? and therein lies the challenge that each senator will forever be responsible for resolving.

we hear a lot about the phrase checks and balances and oftentimes that relates to the three branches of government but checks and balances oftentimes refers to the role of the minority, checking and balancing the role of the majority and to a certain extent that has been so since the very beginning of the united states senate with some exceptions. the great depression, world war ii, the 60s and the great society. there were times when he had a supermajority in the senate that really didn't necessitate the need for bipartisan consensus even though in most cases there was some. but even with such command, even with a supermajority i think it's fair to say and i would say most senators would agree that legislation is stronger and more appealing when it's truly bipartisan.

howard baker, the majority leader from tennessee, had a wonderful practice of doing something that i wish were done more frequently today. after one of the most vigorous debates or one of those divisive times on the florida senate and the final vote had been taken, he would crossover and seek out and shake the hand of his primary opponent on the other side. he said come code that gesture may be as important as anything i do here on the floor at any time. and in an earlier era does personal bonds that were created between and among senators were really much more common than they are today. one of those illustrations of the bonds can be found in military service. when i was elected seven in 10

members had served in a military. the military. today it is to intend. but in the old days, the military was so much a part of a senator or a legislator's history that there would be caucuses and breakfasts and lunches. there was the navy breakfast and the marine breakfast in the army lunch. they would get together not as republicans or democrats but as members of the army. veterans of the navy or the marines. one of the first with whom i had a special relationship, a first republicans i should say is somebody whose name i know you know well. he's one of my favorite americans and i can't tell you how much i treasure our friendship. that person is bob dole. there was a very poignant extraordinarily powerful moment just a couple of weeks ago.

dan inouye eight president pro tempore of the senate was dying and lying in state in the senate rotunda. bob dole was wheeled and in his wheelchair to pay his last respects. he got out of his wheelchair and worked his way up to the casket and saluted with his good hand and then mention to those around him, i couldn't do that with dna sitting in a wheelchair. he and i were elected republican and democratic leaders in 1994. he had been leader. he said, when we were both elected, every farmer immediately went out and bought a new tractor. i don't know whether that was the case but over a long period

of time, now 35 years, we have written a lot -- are ridden a lot of those country roads together. one of the biggest gestures of bipartisanship occurred not with bob dole but with somebody that i didn't know well until the year 2001 and that was george w. bush. we experience a lot in our time in office together including 9/11. right after 9/11, he decided to make a speech to the country in a joint session of congress. this was a very emotional time, a very troubling and uncertain time. he gave a speech. after he came down to the dais he walked to the senate floor and i was the first to greet him it was a spontaneous gesture but

we both hugged each other on national television. both parties questioned whether that was the right thing to do. as we looked at each other we thought, we will probably hear it from some around the country for what we just did. but it was an honest gesture of sincere efforts to unify a very troubling time. but much has changed in the 150 years of history the senate has experienced. i worked with three liters bob dole trent lott and go first. trend and i were leaders during one of the most troubled times, 9/11 and the anthrax attacks in my office. the decisions by the senate to go to war in afghanistan and iraq.

we felt it was so important that we have the ability to communicate that we set up a hotline in our offices where we picked up the phone and it automatically dialed the one place, the desk of the other leader because we thought it was that important to be able to communicate. the senate itself was born of great compromise. henry clay noted that all legislation is founded on the principle of mutual concession. if there are those who believe standing one's ground is often the only option. president gerald ford who presided over the senate observed 25 years after he left public office that unfortunately there are those for whom consensus is a dirty word. a few mistake the clash of ideas for what he called holy war.

our nation has endured other eras of confrontation and including before during and after the civil war and if you haven't seen the movie lincoln by urging to do so because that depicts exactly the kind of confrontational spirit that we know existed during that time. but that wasn't the only time. during and after world war i, during the 1960s with all of the focus on civil rights and the vietnam war, partisanship at least for many of us who didn't experience those times was the worst we can read member -- remember in our lifetimes. it is why 2007 howard baker and bob dole and mitchell and i created the bipartisan center for the hoped not to end partisan debate but to embrace it with an expectation that debate can lead ultimately to

consensus. earlier, this month we came within hours of taking this country over the fiscal cliff. fortunately at literally the last minute, crisis was averted and today ironically as we speak the house of representatives appears to have come to the conclusion that avoiding putting this country a national default by not addressing the debt limit is something we need to do on a bipartisan basis. the president has indicated he will support the limited expansion that they will ultimately authorized today but again it's an illustration of how much more we need to do in order to address the dysfunctional nature of institutions as they exist

today. partisanship rancor and gridlock that plague many presidents. harry truman made the now historic assertion that the congress with whom he had to work did nothing. teddy roosevelt once submitted congress does a third to a half of the minimum that it ought to do and i am profoundly grateful that they get that much done. in the old days, clashes sometimes even turned violent and you students of history certainly remember the moment in 1804 when the aaron burr literally shot and killed treasury secretary alexander hamilton. that one we remember from our history books that what but what you may not remember in 1854

senators thomas hart benton from missouri and henry flake of mississippi got into his a spat on the senate floor. senator vogt pulled out a handgun, pointed it at the head of thomas benton and benton hollered, i have no pistol, let him fire. stand out of the way and let the assassin fired. fortunately they declared a recess and pulled the two apart and say the senator's life. and then of course in 1856 another famous incident from south carolina congressman preston brooks incensed by his speech by massachusetts senator charles sumner came over and came onto the senate floor and with a steel tipped cane be charles sumner levy and within inches of his life. so by the standards we have a very peaceful body today.

[laughter] no excessive demonstrations of violence or guns at least for the moment. but in recent debates the senate has become more partisan and unfortunately more individualistic. many of the traditions and four quays are fading as we see each congress come and to existence. senators no longer for example wait out for their time to be recognized on the senate floor to give their speech. it used to be senators would wait for months to be recognized to give that first speech. four major factors have created the climate and the environment within which the senators are operating or not operating as well today.

the first is in some ways i think the most important and that is the -- [inaudible] it has allowed senators to leave on thursdays, come back on tuesdays and try to govern on wednesday's. it has broken the traditions that were long part of the united states senate. when i came to the house of representatives virtually everybody moved their families to washington. i'm. i am told in the last couple of congresses there has been no new senator that has moved their families to washington. and so the opportunities to socialize, the bonds to get to know one another have become much more limited and if you don't know someone, you can't trust someone. if you don't trust someone, you can't deal with someone and if you can't deal with someone you don't legislate with someone in an effective way.

a congressman from my part of the country, a new freshman congressman recently remarked, a lot of freshmen don't have a whole lot of knowledge. this is a "that. about the way washington has operated. but frankly we really don't care it's troubling. if. if you don't know how washington works it's pretty hard to make washington work on behalf of the rest of the country. the second factor is the money chase. a typical senator has to raise $5000 every single day he or she is in office. in the last cycle, there were two races where the money spent on both sides exceeded

$80 million. the money chase is becoming more and more of an extraordinary problem not only for the time it takes and in the last two years of any six year term a senator anywhere from half to three force of this time doing nothing but raising money. and that also exacerbates the limited opportunities to get to know your other colleagues. and so the money chase is becoming far more pronounced and the citizens united decision only exacerbated the problem even more seriously. vice president mondale said it well. he said the pressure of big money in politics and its power to destroy the public trust is a threat to the senate and to the nation. i couldn't say it any better. the third factor is a combination of two things.

the redrawing of congressional districts and they powered that certain constituencies have now taken upon themselves to influence the primary election process. we have a redistricted in such a way throughout the country that now approximately 400 of the 455 members of congress are in so-called safe seats either republican or democratic. the number of swing districts are diminishing by the year. we add to that the ability now of big money and special interests to influence the primary election process and that makes the primary and those 400 seats a lot more important than the general election. and when the primary is more important guess what happens? you gravitate to the extremes, the right and the left.

and therein lies this dilemma, standing one's ground that finding common ground. for. for what incentive is there to find common ground when the most important election is not the one requiring common ground. it has become so much of a problem that we have actually made dick lugar's last named a verb. dick lugar who was defeated in the last election in the primary now is the reference people use. i don't want to get be in the primary. i don't want to have happen to me what happened to that respect its extraordinary member of the united states senate from indiana. the fourth factor is the dramatic change the media has

brought about. it used to be that the media was the referee, the walter cronkite's. now the media is the participant the rush limbaugh's and therein lies all one needs to know about the change in media today. the blogs, the cable news networks, and all of the extraordinary cacophony of voices that come on a daily basis not without some sacrifice in accuracy i might hasten to add. it has created a real dilemma for policymakers today. i would even argue, as much as i'm grateful for c-span that even the new transparency that c-span has brought about his change the dynamic. it used to be senators would go to the floor and speak to their colleagues on the floor.

today, oftentimes the senate goes to the floor and speaks to the cameras and in so doing avoids speaking to their colleagues. and those cameras sometimes make it more difficult to be candid, especially in negotiations. here is what i would like to say but i can't say it because the camera is on. and so it creates problems for the guys who are moving the negotiating process along, when you can't be candid. i am often asked, will it change and the answer is yes. the country is always evolving. always changing. and i remain hopeful that the change will certainly bring about more opportunities for better governance and a greater respect once again for the institutions so profoundly critical to this republic.

and if it does, i hope that it will change recent practice. in the last two years, 115 cloture motions were filed and filibuster to. filibustered. in the two years prior to that 2009 in 2010, the number was 137. to put that in proper perspective, for the 50 years from 1917 to 1967, there were 45. he congressional approval ratings are certainly relevant as we consider these dysfunctional times in our institution. congressional approval has now fallen below 10%. the more our government grows

dysfunctional and incapable of addressing the serious problems we face in america today, the more the quality of life of all americans suffers, the more the inspiration that we draw from this incredible experience in democracy and a republican form of government in the nations. and the consequences have global dynamics as well. the more dysfunctional we are, the less competitive we can be diplomatically, economically and even in terms of our national security. the world has gone from being interdependent to being increasingly integrated economically and socially. and integration requires a level of leadership that is at the very heart of our government.

the president he -- presidency and the senate in the house. i've actually had conversations with ambassadors in recent years, where they would candidly admit, we have always taken the message in our country that we want to be like you but it's harder for us to say that today. and therein lies our recognition of the need for change again. we simply can't afford to lower the bar in the middle east, in africa or anywhere else for the future of democracy isn't out. over the last several years, we have heard the noise of democracy at full volume. we shouldn't be surprised by it. you can only imagine the degree of emotional involvement and all

310 million americans could somehow be assembled. can you only imagine how many people standing their ground, how many people looking for common ground? that is exactly what happens on the floor of the united states senate every day. the noise of democracy is not stereophonic. it is not easy to listen to. but it beats the alternatialternati ve, the noise of violence that we see in syria and somalia or the sudan. i am encouraged really by three things as i close out my remarks i am encouraged by the increasing number of new senators elected to pledge to their constituents that they will find common ground procedurally and substantive way. i am encouraged as well by the number of new organizations that are blossoming, encouraging

others to join them in calling upon the congress to find common ground. i am encouraged as well by the remarkable number of young americans he who are being called to public service in in the military, in the halls of congress and in this administration. i was listening to npr just yesterday and i heard a wonderful story and maybe you heard it too. a young woman who owns her own hairdressing shop about 150 miles from here got up at 2:00 in the morning on monday, took the bus to washington. arrived here a few hours later, stood in that cold weather for several hours at some distance from the podium to witness the

renewal of our democracy. got back on the bus and drove all the way back i went to work the next day. there is a wonderful story about benjamin franklin at constitution hall in the very early early stages of our deliberations. a crowd was always gather and as mr. franklin was leaving the hall one night in philadelphia a woman yelled out to him mr. mr. president what would it be if we decided it would be a monarchy or would it be a republic? he thought for a moment and he yelled back to the woman, maam it would be a republic if we can keep it. we have been charged with

keeping this republic now for 200 years and there are only two ways to do it. either to fight for it or to work at its. it's incumbent upon all of us, all of us to do one or both and he no one could possibly be in a more important decision to lead the way then the 100 united states senators, each with their own number, each with a the recognition that they have entrusted to do all that we can to keep it. thank you all very very much. [applause]

[applause] thank you very much. do we have time for questions? yes. >> senator thank you for your remarks. you mentioned the explosion of cloture votes and i am curious to know whether you would be willing to happen a guess as to what will happen in the next 36 hours to amend the filibuster rule and if you could explain how it is that we got away from the classical version of the filibuster where if you said you were going to do that you had to stand your ground and do it? it hasn't happened and i don't know how long and now we are threatening filibusters for e-mails and it is holding up the business of the senate. >> it's an excellent question and it's ironically would be talking about the senate today because we are deliberating these very issues on the senate floor. allen furman was our parliamentarian for many many years, a man i turned to daily for advice when i was later. he would be the best person to address the question and i'm not

even sure we can totally agree on this because it is so central to the procedures. i think there are two things that i wish we could go back to doing that we did at one time. we now have the practice of what we call dual tracking where if there is a filibuster we set the bill aside and take up something else. and the very nature of sending legislation aside makes it less painful and less problematic and therefore makes it may be easier to do business but it lessens the impact of the filibuster and i think requires and allows people to do it more often. so i would say we aren't going going to dual-track and a longer. we are going to keep on this piece of legislation until it's resolved one way or another. the other is a practice of requiring the senator to keep the floor, to hold the floor.

allen can tell us i am sure exactly what the record is but if i recall if strom thurmond who held the floor for something like 26 hours and so many minutes. he held the floor for that long. how one could do that -- though i know i couldn't but he did and many others held the floor for nearly that length of time. but we got away from that. so it seems to me there is a reason why filibusters were used so rarely before, because they were such an inconvenience. people had to stay all night. george mitchell tells this wonderful funny story about how one of the first nights he was there, he was subject to a filibuster and he had to find a and -- acod and at that time john warner was married to elizabeth taylor.

george mitchell had just given up his seat on the federal bench to be a united states senator and he was lamenting all the problems that he had and how convenient it would need if he could be sleeping in his own bed. then he said he saw warner sleeping and he said -- [inaudible] but i think we have lost the drama of a circumstance involving the filibuster that we need to bring back. before we go into a lot of rules changes that would like to see just those two reversions back to the senate could alleviate a lot of the problems. the other thing that i would do is there something called the secret hold which is the secret trust a filibuster. i think we have to eliminate all the secret hold. that is one time when transparency could really be beneficial but we don't do that either. those three things could make a

big difference. >> senator daschle thank you for the polk and for your thoughts and i look forward to reading the book. i wanted to bring up a topic that is maybe some of the difficulty of being the senator are those anthrax letters. the anthrax letters went out to tom brokaw and tom daschle. i always wondered, the fbi solve the case. it was bruce ivins, it's a range scientist. why did he send those letters and how did he pick his targets? >> well, he worked at dietrich and he worked on it and tracks vaccine. there was legislation introduced to exempt soldiers from taking the vaccine because it was a 30 vaccine.

it was a bad vaccine. he was the one that developed the vaccine. he sent a letter and said something like -- i memorized his letter. it said we have this anthrax. you are all going to die. are you scared now? why would a scientist from ohio send -- but could that have been his motivation? >> it's a puzzling puzzling set of circumstances and i want to say, i have a lot of very mixed feelings. there are those who suggest that mr. ivins may not even be the person ultimately responsible. i give credit to the fbi for all of their work. bob has been very good about sharing his developments with me but i have to say what could motivate somebody to do that and

whether it was mr. ivins or somebody else is something -- i guess the good news for us is that while 28 of my staff or exposed, and i'm one, had any lasting effects so we can be thankful for that but obviously very very troubling by that experience and the realization that it could happen again. and we need to be in a position to protect ourselves much more proactively is something we have given a lot of thought to. >> it must have been bruce ivins plus someone else. if you are scientist from ohio, there were other things like death to israel and eniac things like that is scientist from ohio -- though it's hard to believe. >> it really is or from anywhere else for that matter. yes? >> just in passing i would like to know what instrument you use to carve your name on that

drawer? [laughter] and the use or misuse of the filibuster but there is another part of the senate procedures that i am curious about them maybe you can enlighten me. i know when i'm at home and i want to listen to a little classical music all i need to do is tune into c-span senate and more often than not the senate is in a quorum and there's a quorum call and i can listen to a little rachmaninoff. i mean it happened so much. so much time is spent in that mode in the senate when it's in session and i wonder is it serving some functional deliberative political purpose? i mean, is there a lot of activity going on behind those walls that i don't know about? what's going on there? [laughter] >> how is the music? yes, actually it's a wonderful question and i am sure so many viewers often wonder why is

there all of this time spent with nothing happening? and in part it has to do with the fact that the senate floor is really the final stage of whatever deliberations may be taking place whether it's a nomination or a piece of legislation. oftentimes, you find these moments when someone isn't quite ready to offer an amendment and someone is between pieces of legislation and the managers of the bill haven't come to the floor or it could mean at times you are in the middle of heated negotiations and you just have to call a timeout so that these negotiations can be consummated. and so there are a lot of reasons why the quorum calls continue and you could adjourn and then come back and an file in a german but as allen could far more eloquently describe ,-com,-com ma there are too many times when you aren't sure just when that will be so you with the senate and a quorum which is

technically the calling of the role as you know and in a very slow slow cadence to accommodate that period of time when you aren't prepared to take further action on the senate floor and it's not convenient to adjourn so that you can come back at a later time. it happens probably more often than it should from a viewer's point of view but at the same time i can assure you whether it's in the cloak rooms or the deliberate ignorance or some senate office there is a lot of activity going on around and behind it. but it is probably more true at the beginning of the session that the end of the session. the sessions become more and more intense and more and more concentrated with more and more activities as you get closer to the end. we will probably see a lot of quorum calls in the next couple of months but it will be in part because we are not ready to take

something to the floor at this point. and. and the signature, i used a little jack knife and carved my name and it's typical that you fill it in with ink after you carve it. so i did that as well and it's not as large as lyndon johnson's but nonethelenonethele ss, it is there. i had another story but i didn't know until my grandchildren were touring the senate a couple of months ago and they were taken to the old senate chamber which is where senate luncheon steak place. the guide very kindly pointed out, you have to look very carefully but my name is engraved on the top of the desk of one of the desks in the and the only senate chamber and it occurred most likely when we were voting for a leader and somebody had a piece of paper and just press down too hard and

it actually carved right there on the top. i don't know who that was, so i'm privileged to say i have had my name carved a couple of times >> have you observed any changes of congressional mood following mayor bloomberg's pro-gun control that has charged incumbent members of congress and in general what you think is the current sensing congress on what is going to be done about gun control issues? >> i must say that i only wish that we could be more optimistic about our ability to address the issue. i think the recommendations that the vice president has offered to our country and to the congress are ones that i could be very enthusiastic about. i will say i think that the nra has been extraordinarily powerful voice, a very organized

voice and probably almost more than any other single entity has an enormous amount of influence in the way these votes are cast. i can't recall the last time they lost a vote on the senate floor. and so, i am not as optimistic as i would like to be. each and every time we have an incident as tragic as this, there is sort of a renewed effort and a renewed hope and a renewed cohesion and i'm just hopeful that we can take it. i think the president was exactly right in pushing this quickly because memories fade and incredible as that is to believe but it is an acknowledgment that we can't sustain the emotional investment that we have on this issue as long as they wish we could. but we have to strike while the iron is hot and i think the president has done it. i think the chances are better

but i think it's still uphill. >> senator daschle do you see any chance for a bipartisan effort on climate change going forward? >> i would almost give exactly the same answer i just gave to him. [laughter] i think the chances are better. i wish they were even better yet. i think the president was very catalytic in bringing it up during his inaugural address. catalytic in that it gave pronounced attention and priority and a sense of new commitment and i think that's exactly what we need. i worry a lot. i think it will be an issue by which this generatiogeneratio n will be judged and it's critical that we address it. i think that there are some prospects. maybe we should